To this that the abortion age should be lowered

[Hai1988]

Hi all i just wanted to know what peoples thoughts were on this?

At the moment the cut off time to have an abortion is 24 weeks, but on here there has just been a story about twins born at 23 weeks!!

I think the cut off time should go right down to 12 weeks.

What do you lot think??

I think 20 weeks is a reasonable compromise for those who must do it but to me abortion is killing babies and if you have to kill a very immature tiny foetus/embryo then you are killing a person.I dont say you shouldnt be able to do that while it is inside your body but I do think it is important to be able to acknowledge that potential adult and grieve for its loss.

'There can be some common ground - reasonable people who would never have an abortion themselves but who would never deign to dictate what other women should do with their own bodies....

From past MN threads that's whre many women on MN (me included) stand I think

Although there'd be caveats on the alst bit- I would deign to dictate what women showuld do with their bodies in some circs (EG a women I know ATM who forgets to feed ehr son often should be forced to move and do it, etc) but in thsi context, no

Babies survive (birth at least) from 20 weeks - the youngest surviving baby is 21 weeks. If a 20/ 21 weeker survives birth and is then killed by a doctor or nurse in the same way it would have if the baby had been aborted and survived, would that be acceptible?

It's not reasonable or true to say "women do not use abortion as birth control" as there is a minority of women who do. I know one who had 3 terminations at a fairly young (although legal) age because she was inept with contraception. I agree that MOST women do not use abortion as birth control" but the previous blanket statement is not accurate.

BTW discussing abortion is impossible, The 2 views aren't in any way bridgeable to find common ground"

I agree and I dont agree Henny

I am pro abortion, but to a certain extent.
I am no pro lifer, I dont stand around abortion clinics abusing the women that go in
other people that have posted against late abprtion, have also had them too.

I just get very uncomfortable about healthy babies that are closer to the 24 week mark than 12 week mark being aborted.

would I want to see a 13 year old that has denied she has been raped made to carry her rapists baby, hell no

but I dont feel comfortable with a healthy 20 week baby being aborted cos the mother "did not realise". I am sorry, but I dont. I cant see my feelings on that changing

But I do think that sometimes, it can be avpoider4d and think we need a cultural change to adress that

I thought most abortions were carried out before 12 weeks anyway? I think I've read that less than 1% of abortions are carried out after 22 weeks.

If you dont want to be pregnant anymore and miss the cut off then what? you magically change your mind and play happy families I doubt it. Could end up with alot of backstreet abortions like there were before abortion was legalised. Don't sound like a great plan...

BTW what I'm trying to say is YABU they should leave it as it is.

porca - I asked earlier in the thread, but maybe you missed it.

Exactly how many healthy babies are being aborted at the 23-34 mark anyway?

I'd have thought the number was utterly minuscule, given that even the number of abortions carried out for medical reasons at this point in gestation is so tiny...

I think you would be hard-pushed to find anyone who supports abortion for 'social' reasons at the close-to-24-week mark.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581159/A-record-3000-late-abortions-in-Britain.html

I think everything that could be said on this thread already has.

I've had an abortion, nearly a year ago, at ten weeks. It was definitely the right decision, but that didn't make it a pleasant experience or one that I want to ever repeat.

And I was on the pill when I got pregnant (although I think I missed one, my fault, fair enough), but continuing to take it meant I didn't have any periods anyway, which was normal for me. The only indication I had of pregnancy was morning sickness at about 6 weeks, and by the time I'd had the necessary appointments and waiting time the actual termination was at ten weeks.

This is related to one of my (several) reasons for aborting: I did not realise I was pregnant and so carried on drinking and smoking heavily, I think I may have even had some form of illegal drugs during that time and certainly carried on eating all the non-pregnancy foods, cleaning out the litter tray etc. I had no way of telling whether I'd damaged the foetus. And while I have nothing but admiration for parents who bring up severely disabled children, I'm not sure I could do it myself.

Just to refer back to an earlier question abortion is illegal in N. Ireland (unless continued pregnancy is a threat to mothers mental or physical health). Not only are poorer women not being given any choice by not being able to fly/catch the ferry over to Scotland/England. Those that do choose an abortion, have to pay for travel, abortion and often travel on same day to avoid explanations to work, family members etc, a horrible and frightening decision made 100 times worse.

Sally all of your reasons are valid

But I know you didn't know so in no way commenting on your sit I promise, just in case anyone looks in-

Up until IIRC when the placenta takes over (often the stage at which morning sickness ceases)the embryo is maintained via it's own source and therefore medical types suggest that ingesting 'wrong' foods, alcohol etc is not a huge cause for concern until then. Now, clearly tehre are teratogenic drugs etc but whilst it's good to be aware it's not to be hugely worried about.

What about those of us who don't have 4-weekly cycles? You might not have any idea you were pregnant until too late to do anything about it.

firstly the point about 20 weeks scan and abnormalities is a red herring, as can have a termination up to term for abnormality.

OP: Although I don't agree particularly withn non medical late terminations I thik it should be the mothers choice as to whether its appropriate.

I always wonder how people who want the law changed would implement it. Because if you're going to put arbitrary time limits on something like termination, how do you enforce it? Who then decides whether one woman's reason is better than the next woman's? And the desperate woman that seeks an illegal termination because she missed the cut-off, how would you punish her?

The rights of the woman must remain the deciding factor as unpalatable as it may remain for some.

Ogre I am not advocating a law change but why would it be any different for say 20 weeks than the limits we have now?

Same decisions surely?

MrsT IIRC always ahs an intriguing POV which is that the biggest isue is the concept that it's OK to terminate a disabled child very late on but another and it would be better to remove limits completely rather than show that level of - well I guess that a disabled child is less valuable.
I feel incredibly unfortable with later termination fulls top and find it ahrd to think clearly about it so don;t have set opinions I would choose to propose but it's an interesting thought

'Oh and it is possible to say it's something I would never do and be right'

Maybe but there is also a chance you would change your mind and it is just a guess. I generally take people's opinions like a pinch of salt unless they have been through what they are comenting on.

But I have been through a lot- two disabled kids, high risk pregnancies etc

Financial meltdown, ill dh

So really an awful lot of the reasons others would give to terminate quite undertsndably

I had known DH 3 months when ds1 was conceived

I really do think I have been trhrough enough, generally, to know how I react to such things.

SlackSally, most of us who have disabled children would have thought the same as you prior to having our children - 'I'm not sure I could do it myself'. We just learn to cope because we have to, as you would do if you had to.

IMO abortion for any reason should be legal at any point in the pregnancy.

I don't say this lightly - I started off from a pro-life position. But that implies assumptions about women and babies that are very unpleasant.

If you can abort a baby with a condition (and it doesn't have to be life limiting or even severe - just a condition) up to term, then you should be able to abort any unborn infant up to term. Either abortion is OK, or it isn't. To say that it is OK when the baby is disabled is disablist and discriminatory.

To say that a potential person is less of a person because they don't "look" like a baby is weird IMO. A 21 week unborn child is just as much of a potential as a 6 week unborn child. They both have the same amount of humanity, you don't become more homo sapiens as you grow. The only value they have is that placed upon them by their environment. There is no external, objective measurement.

You cannot insist women carry and bear babies, whether disabled or not, because they have control and power over their bodies, which is a Good Thing. And you cannot ban abortion, because that leads to forced pregnancy, power over women, botched, hideous abortion and many other awful consequences.

Therefore, abortion has to be legal. Any limit that does not include all unborn babies is arbitary and discriminatory, since women cannot be forced to bear a disabled child, there should be no limit.

I don't actually like the opinion I have come to, but it is the only one that makes sense to me. I am pretty sure it puts me at odds with everyone though, please feel free to flame me for being over simplistic.

I do genuinely believe that removing the limit would not lead to a flurry of late term abortions - because it is not something anybody enters into lightly.

I have been through a far deal too and was always 'pro life' for myself 'pro choice' for others. But I made several very different choices in very different situations. I was a single pregnant teenager and agonised but decided to go ahead with the pregnancy. In another pregnancy we got high risks for downs and decided not to have an amnio or further tests. We felt we could have coped with downs since it usually isn't fatal. In another pregnancy we sadly 'chose' to end the pregnancy as our baby could not have survived and it also could have got dangerous to me. I had only said a few weeks before that whats the point in an amnio as we would never terminate but we had to have the amnio as there was possible treatment in utero if there was no underlying disorder, we were plunged into making the decision. It was so different actually being faced with that. It's a lesson i will never forget.

But what about if a parent of a baby with severe conditions has to face difficult choices about prolonging life when the baby is born? EG if there will be no quality of life etc. If all life is valued and equal then what about brain dead people, do we keep them alive at any cost? I realise that there is a huge difference between a baby with mild disabilites and say anencephaly though and people with DS etc can have anjoyable lives and contribute much to society and families.

Alot of people who have terminations for abnormailty tend to say that they didn't want to bring a child into the world to suffer/die/be hugely disadvatged etc etc I also think how many people who disagree with these terminations would say they would go ahead whatever the condition inc dreadful ones such as anencephaly, harlequin itchiosis etc etc..if it were their baby?

SanctiMoanyArse:

No, you're right, I didn't know that. I guess I kind of assumed since smoking, drinking etc is generally so frowned upon and advised against.

I still feel I made the right decision though. As I said, it was only one of my reasons.

I an underastand that Jelly, I really can. Soemtimes people think having a disabled kid emans it's harder for me to understand, but as my Mum had a terrible history- she had miscarriages at 28 weeks, babies whcih would now be likely to survive- 4 times over, then had to have a termination for rubella damage-so i've seen a lot. I've also worked for a parenting charity and some of that was with women undergoing terminations, for all sorts of reasons. Very good ones too.

But the reasons I feel so sure in myself are ebcuase if you have had to deal with disability (my boy's have ASD so not detectable pre birth) you as I am sure you know after your experiences get to know yourself very well, becuase of how much of a rollercoaster it all is. DS1 was bortn after a hyperemetic pregnancy, but not diagnosed until 6 (although tehre's posts on ehre form me under a ndifferent name back when he was 18 months old asking for help). When we are expecting ds3 we were told he was very high risk Downs syndrome like you, and we didn't have amnio for all sorts fo reasons. he doesn't ahve it but does somewhat ironically have ASD and have difficulties on a par anyway. DS4 had a theoretical risk of ASD up to 80 - 90%: but nobody really knows. When you're carrying a baby you know has that risk, and already caring for 2 others it sorts out who you are in your own head. As it happens he is developing in an NT way and short of a regression (has to be before 3 which is in April) he should be ASD-free. I think we probably dealt with it by carrying him assuming he would be severely autistic though.

Through my old work I;ve sat with the kids of women making teh decision to terminate for reasons I absoluely agree with- yet would never have to face because it's a situation I would never be in (can't give details obviously).

And maybe there are things I can't even imagine - whenw e refused amnio with ds3 we went through edwards etc and accepted risks of that and decided what we would do but although not planning another baby if I did conceive and then found I as ill I would have to put the boys first I guess.

In an ideal world:

all women would have regular cycles and recognise at once when they were pregnant

no women would have mental health issues that prevented them from dealing with an unwanted pregnancy pronto

there would be no waiting lists in the health service- anyone who wanted a termination could get it straightaway

no woman would procrastinate for fear of an abusive father/mother/boyfriend and/or be unable to book a termination until she had got to a safe place

there would be no rape and no sexual abuse by fathers/brothers/stepfathers/teachers etc

no woman's circumstances would ever be allowed to change during pregnancy (this would be the law!)

there would be an abundance of potential adoptive parents

all the above adoptive parents would be suitable parents (have heard some horror stories from older adopted children, from the days back when unwanted pregnancy=adoption)

all the above parents would be capable of dealing with the particular traumas of an adopted child